TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no exemption or concession granted for services classified as works contract. With that basis the demand was confirmed for the period prior to 01/06/2007 under other tax headings. Construction of independent houses for MPHB - taxability - Held that: - Existence of common facilities available to all residents of the locality or existence of common facilities in an approved lay out which is already in existence, wherein additional independent houses were built will not be covered in the scope of tax entry for construction of complex service. These aspects require re-examination - matter on remand. Various factual and legal issues have not been dealt with by the Original Authority before arriving at the decision in the impugned order - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings are composite in nature, involving transfer of property in goods, leviable to tax as sale of goods. In fact, they were registered with the State VAT Authorities for discharging tax under works contract. As such, there is no liability of service tax on these contracts prior to 01/06/2007 in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE CUS, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.) ; (b) the Original Authority did not consider the statutory scope of tax entry under the category of construction of complex service. They have built for MPHB, independent HIG houses and they have produced all evidences to support their claim that these independent houses cannot be considered as reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service in terms of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994. Such levy is tenable only w.e.f. 01/06/2007. We are in agreement with the appellant that based on the evidences like their registration in the State VAT Authorities, TDS deduction, the terms of contract, it is clear the contracts under consideration are composite in nature involving supply of goods also. The said fact is apparently admitted by the lower Authority, who recorded that prior to 01/07/2007 (should be 01/06/2007) there was no exemption or concession granted for services classified as works contract. With that basis the demand was confirmed for the period prior to 01/06/2007 under other tax headings. We find the said observation is legally not sustainable in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of complex service. These aspects require re-examination. Secondly, these contracts are claimed to be works contracts and the appellants submitted substantial evidences in support of their claim. Thirdly, the service tax on these construction has reportedly been discharged by MPHB, in full, by collecting the same from the buyers of the house. This claim has been made by the appellant, which also requires verification. 7. We also note that even in respect of certain contracts which were held to be not taxable, the calculation of taxable value has claimed to have been not properly arrived at. The appellants also claimed that the amounts received as advance for the year 2004- 2005 have suffered service tax and there is error in arriving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
